Argument for the Intentional Fallacy
             The act of interpreting and criticizing literature is much like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle without the aid of a picture to show it in its completed form. Both tasks involve analyzing small bits of data, in the case of the puzzle the data being its individual pieces, and in the case of literature being chunks of text, and assembling that data into a coherent whole. It is the assembly which is the important part, the act of transforming small pieces of an unknown thing into an ordered whole. One would not call the puzzle's manufacturer and ask as to the position of a certain piece as the means of figuring out the piece's position should be inherent, and it would be contrary to the very idea of a puzzle. The purpose, the idea, of the puzzle is in its assembly, in how it is transformed from how it came in the box to an ordered whole, not in the finished project itself. If all one wanted was a completed version of the picture they were meant to assemble then the manufacturer might as well not have cut the puzzle's cardboard into its separate pieces at all and just boxed it as it originally was. Once it is shipped out the manufacturer's role is complete; essentially any opinion the manufacturer may hold regarding the puzzle's assembly is totally irrelevant. This same idea applies to literature. The intended meaning of the author for a successful work is irrelevant as the meaning should be inherent within the body of the text.
             If while assembling a puzzle one were to find two pieces that match exactly in shape and coloring then it would be impossible to discern which of the two interchangeable pieces should fit in which spot. There would be two ways to put together the same puzzle for the same result. Now, let us suppose that on the back of each piece is a special code and the code is the only thing that makes the two interchangeable pieces
             ...